Did Roger Shuler Commit Unauthorized Practice of Law?

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga^®.  If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not everyone reads my blog.  The short version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime.   I recognize that this might sound like an incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in other words, you don’t have to believe my word.  You only have to believe your eyes.  So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

First, a programming note: for the last ten days I have been doing daily pieces on Brett Kimberlin’s lies in his ridiculous RICO suit called “Brett Kimberlin Accuses Himself of Obstruction of Justice.”  They have appeared at around seven in the morning most days.  Because of Halloween preparations, today will be an exception.  I might find the time to write about it later today, but in the short term it is put off.  And getting one off for tomorrow will be iffy.  But hey, at least I am giving you this blockbuster, right?

Moving to the subject at hand, as regular readers know I have been fascinated, in a car wreck sort of way by the case of Roger Shuler.  I wrote about my opinion of the order under which he was arrested, here, and about Shuler’s mentality, here. There are, of course, two tracks that are keeping my interest: the (in my mind) unlawful detention of Roger Shuler, and the awful reporting of Bill Schmalfeldt.  I have done some actual reporting, including interviews of subjects with knowledge of the case, but I will post that in a little bit.  First, I want to start with the blockbuster question:

Did Roger Shuler Commit Unauthorized Practice of Law?

An interesting angle to this story is emerging evidence that Roger Shuler might have committed unauthorized practice of law.  Now, let me be clear: I am not saying that he definitely did.  There are a few pieces of this puzzle that have to be proven, before we can assemble a picture of proven unauthorized practice of law, but consider what I have found so far.

This issue started when Patrick “Patterico” Frey, for whatever reason, decided to mock some extremely incompetent legal advice offered by a “Roger S.” at Breitbart Unmasked.  For those who don’t know, Breitbart Unmasked is a site dedicated ostensibly to attacking... Andrew Breitbart, for some reason.  In reality, its actual targets have been mainly convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin’s list of enemies (imagined or real) and has served more or less as his unofficial press office.  For instance, when Brett Kimberlin actually stalked my wife outside a courthouse, and took photographs of her and myself, Breitbart Unmasked published the photos, just as they did when Brett Kimberlin showed up to stalk me at Blogbash.

So Patrick wrote a post over at his site talking about how this person was trying to terrorize the defendants in Kimberlin's deluded RICO suit into settling and lying about each other, and roundly mocked this Roger S. for giving incompetent legal advice.  It is worth noting that Patterico ended his piece by joking that maybe next time they should consult a real lawyer.

Then when the story of Shuler’s arrest started breaking, Robert Stacy McCain pointed out that some were suggesting that Roger Shuler was the Roger S. who posted over there. 

Meanwhile, when Bill Schmalfeldt first started writing about this case, the headline was “Op-Ed: Alabama attorney jailed after writing stories about ex-Gov.’s son.”  But as I looked into things, I started to wonder: was Schuler actually an attorney?  You might know that I ultimately determined that he was not.

But where did Schmalfeldt get that idea that Roger Shuler was a lawyer?  As I pointed out, Shuler, writing under his real name, had never given the slightest hint that he was a lawyer.  And yet Schmalfeldt seemed to be really convinced he was one.  When I first starting pointing out that Shuler didn’t appear to be a lawyer, he said something angrily at me, like “he’s more of a lawyer than you are!”  Interestingly enough, since then he has deleted that comment.

Well, while Roger Shuler never said he was a lawyer, “Roger S.” did at Breitbart Unmasked.  Now, we have a long-standing policy here of not linking to that site because it is associated with Neal Rauhauser, who openly associates with hackers.  But, still, I looked in a safe manner and this is what I found.

In a post entitled “Is Jeff Dunetz Operating @KimberlinUnmask?” Roger S. shows up and says in relevant part: “As a lawyer, I think that this case…”  Likewise, in another post called “Popehat’s Vexatious Friends Get His Signal of Support,” he wrote: “I am a lawyer.”  Finally, in a post entitled “What Happened to Breitbart’s Millions?” Roger S. says, “As a lawyer, here is what I would be looking at...”  There are more instances, but three are sufficient to make my point.

Furthermore, he does more than just say he’s a lawyer.  He gives legal advice.  For instance, in the post “Is Jeff Dunetz Operating @KimberlinUnmask?” The post makes the fallacious case that Jeff Dunetz, aka Yid With Lid, is secretly the Anti-Kimberlin blogger known as "Kimberlin Unmasked."  Roger S. writes the following specific instructions that Brett Kimberlin should following a hearing scheduled for this coming Monday about whether the court will aid him in that search:

Kimberlin should just ask the lawyer [for Kimberlin Unmasked] point blank if Jeff Dunetz is [Kimberlin Unmasked]. If the lawyer says “no” then everyone can take that to the bank because no lawyer is going to lie, especially in this case where KU has been sued in at least three separate cases. But if the lawyer says he will neither confirm or deny, then it’s pretty certain that Dunetz is KU.

Of course that is fallacious thinking.  Kimberlin Unmasked’s lawyer will be smart enough not to say no even when it is not him but instead refuse to answer.

And of course Patterico’s post above quoted this advice as well:

One thing I might suggest to Kimberlin — if the defendants in the state case keep making an issue of the perjury charge, just have the state case removed to the federal court where the dumb rule against perjury witnesses will not apply. That case can probably get sent to federal court based on diversity of citizenship of the defendants.

And of course there is a great deal wrong with that advice, dear reader, but we don’t want to educate the midget, so I will simply say that, no, Brett Kimberlin cannot remove his suit to federal court.  But I will note that he was urging the plaintiff in a suit to make a frivolous motion to remove that could have resulted in sanctions against the plaintiff and he did this under the banner of actively pretending to be a lawyer.

So there is no question that “Roger S.” is representing himself to be an attorney and even giving legal advice.  But can we be certain that “Roger S.” is Roger Shuler?  After all, for all we know Roger S. might be Roger Stansfield, and Mr. Stansfield is really an attorney.  What evidence is there, besides the similar name and his friendship with Bill Schmalfeldt, who Kimberlin described as a friend, to show Roger Shuler is the same person as "Roger S."?

Well, one can’t be certain, but in the post entitled “Popehat’s Vexatious Friends Get His Signal of Support,” where “Roger S.” writes that he is a lawyer (and proceeds to dispense more bad advice), Bill Schmalfeldt shows up and writes this (among other things):

Oh, have I mentioned that Roger S. is one of two very cool people who live in Alabama?

So, if the person identifying himself is Bill Schmalfeldt (and Schmalfeldt regularly posts there and has never claimed anyone was faking his comments), then Bill is revealing 1) that he knows who “Roger S.” is and 2) that “Roger S.” lives in Alabama.  But then I am sure there are a lot of Roger S.’s in Alabama.  But Schmalfeldt leaves another clue to Roger S.’s identity when in the very next line, in the very same comment, he writes:

Everyone should read his latest. A very “stiff” portrayal of a Federal Judge

What is he referring to?  Schmalfeldt wrote that comment on September 18, 2013.  The day before, on September 17, 2013, Roger Shuler wrote a post claiming that he had discovered pornographic photos of Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on a gay porn site.  Shuler had long ago decided was part of the Karl Rove cabal against him because he was one of the judges who ruled against one of his silly lawsuits.  At the end of the post was a picture of a young man alleged to be Judge Pryor, with full frontal nudity and I hate to say it but it is relevant, but the picture depicted this person in full arousal.  I hesitate to link to it, but if you have to look, here it is (NSFW, obviously).

So you get it?  A “stiff” portrayal?  (And I thought my puns were groaners.)

I will add that the only proof Shuler offers is a surface resemblance between the men in the photos.  If you are curious about that, and don’t feel like viewing gay porn, here’s an edited version of the same picture (the original left nothing to the imagination):

And here is a recent picture of the judge:

I see a vague resemblance, but I am not convinced.  Incidentally, Judge Pryor has denied it was him and Shuler has no more evidence it was him than what I just showed you and more anonymous sources.  Does anyone ever go on the record for Shuler except to tell him he is wrong?

(By the way, let’s pretend it is Judge Pryor.  How did it get there?  Did Pryor pose for the picture with the intent of selling it to the gay site?  Did he perhaps pose for a girlfriend with the intention that they keep the photos private who later sold it without his consent?  Did he pose for a women’s magazine, but someone decided to sell it to a gay site instead?  These are all reasonable questions that never seem to occur to Shuler has he leaps to the conclusion that 1) it is Pryor, 2) Pryor chose to sell it to the site, and 3) therefore, Pryor is gay.  You know, because a straight man short on cash couldn’t just pose for a gay site and think about women...)

Anyway, the intuition that this was Schmalfeldt in those comments on Breitbart Unmasked and he was referring to that particular post on Shuler’s site is supported by the fact that the article at Digital Journal that was definitely written by Schmalfeldt on Shuler’s arrest linked to the exact same post at Shuler’s site.

And, of course Bill Schmalfeldt is a regular commenter at Legal Schnauzer.  For instance, the other day I pointed out how Shuler actually praised Brett Kimberlin’s flagrantly unconstitutional silencing of my speech by prior restraint.  Well, in that post where he did so, a commenter named “Balmerliberal” shows up, touting the site “Liberal Grouch.”  “Balmerliberal” is one of the nicknames that Schmalfeldt has been known to use.  It was even part of one of his email addresses.  And the Liberal Grouch was a website he used to run.  Further, if you go to the google profile page linked to it, it lists a location of “Elkridge, MD,” and that linked to a single entry blog.  I won’t share the title of it, because that would be disclosing the medical condition of a person who, as far as I can tell, is an innocent bystander.  Schmalfeldt might not hesitate to say every possible hurtful thing about our wives and families, but I am cut from a different cloth.  But the name of the person listed is the same as Bill Schmalfeldt’s wife, and he refers to himself as Bill.  He also links to a defunct Parkinson’s site, and Schmalfeldt talks a great deal about having Parkinson’s.  So that "Balmerliberal" is clearly Bill Schmalfeldt.

And while I feel the evidence is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt that that “Roger S.” is Roger Shuler, in my opinion there is a high probability that it is.

And this could be a very big problem.  As I believe it is in most states, unauthorized practice of law is a crime in Alabama.

Now look, legal advice happens all the time, on the internet.  Someone says what someone should do in a suit and that is arguably legal advice, but the bar associations generally let that slide.  Everyone knows you aren’t a lawyer, so an intelligent reader will take what you said with a grain of salt.

But if the person actually starts identifying him or herself as a lawyer and then starts dispensing advice on how to handle a suit... that becomes much more problematic.

Indeed, like many jurisdictions, Alabama defines the practice of law as including merely holding yourself out to be a lawyer when you are not.  Ala. Code §34-3-1 states that

[i]f any person shall, without having become duly licensed to practice, or whose license to practice shall have expired either by disbarment, failure to pay his license fee within 30 days after the day it becomes due, or otherwise, practice or assume to act or hold himself or herself out to the public as a person qualified to practice or carry on the calling of a lawyer

…that person is guilty of unauthorized practice of law.  I mean if I went around telling people I was an Alabama lawyer, that would technically be unauthorized practice in Alabama, even if I never set foot in the state.  That is why when I talk to people who I believe are out of state I am always careful to mention that I am admitted in D.C. and Virginia though in practicality I was unlikely to get in trouble unless I started dispensing legal advice while in Alabama (with some exceptions such as pro hac vice, of course).

So with all of his legal woes, Shuler might be about to face an inquiry from the Alabama Bar Association and depending on what they find, criminal sanctions.

---------------------------------------

Sidebar: Above I linked to an old Examiner piece written by Bill Schmalfeldt.  In it, he called Ted Nugent a pedophile based on a series of romances/sexual encounters with women who were below the age of eighteen.  Including “Pele Massa, who was 17 when they started dating” (when Nugent was thirty).  That was cited by Schmalfeldt as an example of Nugent’s pedophilia.

At the same time, how old was Brett Kimberlin when he first had sex with his wife?  Well, his wife filed papers with the court saying that they first had sex when she was fourteen in Ukraine and told numerous witnesses the same story.  She swore under oath that they first had sex in Maryland when she was fifteen.  But Bill says he doesn’t believe that Brett did that.

Okay, then when does Brett say they first had sex?  Oh right, when she was sixteen.  So Ted Nugent dates a seventeen year old girl and he is a pedophile to Schmalfeldt.  But Brett Kimberlin admits to sex with a sixteen year old when he was in his forties and he tells Ali Akbar Kimberlin is not a pedophile.  Good to know.

Do you folks see why I don’t believe Schmalfeldt is writing about this story in good faith?

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the donation link on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.